If this survey is real the messages these young people are receiving are completely wrong.
We need to reduce our impact on our planet but CO2 is a complete red herring. The current ECS (temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is centred around 3°C (IPCC AR6). The 2°C will destroy civilisation is simply made up.
Jon Steward:
Vested interest parties are all over this CO2 net zero 'big time'!!!
There are vested interests on every side of every big public and political discussion. The trick is to use your experience as an engineer to look hard at the science and try to figure out which scientific contentions are right and which are wrong. Let me invite you to try doing so.
There is science of this going back many, many decades which has not been “hijacked” by anybody. Significant anthropogenic effects on the atmosphere have been known - I emphasise the word “known” - since the 1960's, starting with the ozone layer. An eminent colleague tells me about his relative, an eminent spectroscopist, who was concerned that the emissions which were affecting the ozone layer were actually doing greater damage through their absorption in the near infra-red. I hazard a guess none of us were around for such discussions but that is where the greenhouse effect arose.
Many, decades ago the planet was said to be cooling and proven wrong, truth is we barely understand the planet and how it works. Early days I'd say. So why scare the sh1t out of everyone and hold the world to ransom unless of course there's money and power to be gained, which is exactly what going on. I wonder when the world is going to wake up to this!
If you don't engage with the science in order to substantiate your inclinations, then the world may be well advised to carry on sleeping until you do. I do agree with you that it can be pretty hard to find out when and if people have good reason for believing what they believe.
Let me put the same question to you as I did to Roger. What is wrong with Karoly and Stott's contention that the CET has risen by 1° since 1950, and that this is very probably (with the percentage given) due to anthropogenic warming? If you think it's wrong, what is your counterargument? Is it sufficiently robust that you can publish it?
When we are done with that, let's go to the work on the European heatwave of 2003, the chances of which Stott, Stone and Allen estimated to a confidence level of greater than 90% had doubled due to anthropogenic effects on climate.
Jon Steward:
Vested interest parties are all over this CO2 net zero 'big time'!!!
There are vested interests on every side of every big public and political discussion. The trick is to use your experience as an engineer to look hard at the science and try to figure out which scientific contentions are right and which are wrong. Let me invite you to try doing so.
There is science of this going back many, many decades which has not been “hijacked” by anybody. Significant anthropogenic effects on the atmosphere have been known - I emphasise the word “known” - since the 1960's, starting with the ozone layer. An eminent colleague tells me about his relative, an eminent spectroscopist, who was concerned that the emissions which were affecting the ozone layer were actually doing greater damage through their absorption in the near infra-red. I hazard a guess none of us were around for such discussions but that is where the greenhouse effect arose.
Many, decades ago the planet was said to be cooling and proven wrong, truth is we barely understand the planet and how it works. Early days I'd say. So why scare the sh1t out of everyone and hold the world to ransom unless of course there's money and power to be gained, which is exactly what going on. I wonder when the world is going to wake up to this!
If you don't engage with the science in order to substantiate your inclinations, then the world may be well advised to carry on sleeping until you do. I do agree with you that it can be pretty hard to find out when and if people have good reason for believing what they believe.
Let me put the same question to you as I did to Roger. What is wrong with Karoly and Stott's contention that the CET has risen by 1° since 1950, and that this is very probably (with the percentage given) due to anthropogenic warming? If you think it's wrong, what is your counterargument? Is it sufficiently robust that you can publish it?
When we are done with that, let's go to the work on the European heatwave of 2003, the chances of which Stott, Stone and Allen estimated to a confidence level of greater than 90% had doubled due to anthropogenic effects on climate.
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site
